DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendments to the specification and claims 1, 7, 13, 17, and 22, in the response filed December 30, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,645,627 to Lifshutz.
Regarding claims 1-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-22, Lifshutz teaches an electret filter media comprising an electret polymer fiber web (nonwoven fabric) comprising 0.3 to 1.2% by weight (claim 9-10) of the web of a fatty acid amide, including ethylene bis-stearamide (claim 3-8, 22) (Lifshutz, abstract, col. 3 line 20 – col. 4 line 28). Lifshutz teaches the web having a basis weight in the range of 10 to 520 g/m2 selected based on the desired filter efficiency and permissible levels of resistance (Id., col. 4 lines 9-14, claim 10). Lifshutz teaches the web being a web of melt blown polymer fibers formed from a polymer resin, such as polypropylene, having incorporated therein a charge stabilizing agent (Id., col. 2 lines 28-38, col. 3 lines 60-65), reading on the nonwoven fabric comprising a meltblown fabric (claim 2) or being a meltblown nonwoven fabric comprising a plurality of meltblown fibers (claim 22), the fiber comprising a polymeric blend of a polymer resin and a high loft additive, and the fiber being monocomponent (claim 12).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range the basis weight being greater than 250 gsm (claim 1, 22), specifically about 250-750 gsm (claim 15), the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the basis weight, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art and based upon the desired level of efficiency.
Regarding claims 1 and 17-22 and the claimed properties of Average Absorption Coefficient (AAC) of from 20 to 250% (claims 1, 22), specifically 30 to 190% (claim 17), in comparison to a similarly prepared nonwoven fabric that does not include the high loft additive; claimed percent increase in thickness in comparison to a similarly prepared nonwoven fabric that does not include the high loft additive (claims 1, 18-19, 22); claimed percent increase in thermal resistance in comparison to a similarly prepared nonwoven fabric that does not include the high loft additive (claim 1, 19, 22), claimed thermal resistance (claim 1, 21, 22), in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose these, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Lifshutz teaches a meltblown nonwoven comprising a fatty acid amide, specifically ethylene bisstearamide, in an amount within the claimed range in a polymer composition. The improvement in performance in the instant disclosure appears to be attributed to the presence of the fatty acid amide. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 13, Lifshutz does not teach the web being thermally bonded (Lifshutz, all, claim 1 col. 2 lines 28-38).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,645,627 to Lifshutz, as applied to claims 1-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-22 above, in view of WO 2020/261034 to Schultz.
Regarding claim 11, Lifshutz teaches the fatty acid amine being a charge stabilizing additive (Lifshutz, abstract, col. 3 lines 20-60).
Lifshutz does not appear to teach the fibers having a sheath/core configuration and the charge enhancing additive (high loft additive) being only present in the sheath.
However, Schultz teaches a filter comprising a nonwoven fibrous web, including meltblown web, comprising a plurality of fiber, including core-sheath fiber, wherein the sheath comprises a charge enhancing additive that is included in molten thermoplastic prior to extrusion to form the thermoplastic fiber (Schultz, abstract, p. 5-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber web of Lifshutz, wherein the fibers are core/sheath with the charge additive is in the sheath as taught by Schultz, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known fiber configurations predictably suitable for use in fibrous web used in filter application containing charge additives.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,645,627 to Lifshutz, as applied to claims 1-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-22 above, in view of WO 2020/261034 to Schultz and USPN 5,582,904 to Harrington.
Regarding claim 14, Lifshutz does not teach the nonwoven being air through bonded.
However, Schultz teaches a filter comprising a nonwoven fibrous web, including meltblown web, comprising a plurality of fiber, wherein the fiber comprises a charge enhancing additive that is included in molten thermoplastic prior to extrusion to form the thermoplastic fiber (Schultz, abstract, p. 5-9). Schultz teaches the nonwoven fibrous web being densified or strengthen such as by thermal bonding (Id., p. 6). Harrington teaches a polyolefin nonwoven material comprising fibers formed from a spin melt composition comprising a modifier including a fatty acid amide encompassing N,N’-ethylene bis-stearamide, in an amount that equates to about 0.05-0.9% by weight, based on the total weight of the fiber (Harrington, abstract, col. 2 lines 30-67, col. 3 lines 28-48). Harrington teaches the nonwoven being a meltblown nonwoven (Id., col. 3 lines 64-67) and teaches the nonwoven web being thermally bonded using hot air (Id., col. 4 lines 22-28), reading on the fiber of the nonwoven fabric being air through bonded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber web of Lifshutz, wherein the web is thermal bonded as taught by Schultz using hot air as taught by Harrington, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known bonding techniques predictably suitable for use in nonwoven fiber webs, including meltblown fiber, containing fatty acid amide additives and to strengthen the web as taught by Schultz.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,645,627 to Lifshutz, as applied to claims 1-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-22 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0065133 to Suzuki and US Pub. No. 2004/0261384 to Merkel.
Regarding claim 16, Lifshutz teaches the polymer fibers forming the web having a diameter in the range of about 1 to 20 micrometers (Lifshutz, col. 2 lines 19-21). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of about 3.5 to 4.5 microns, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the basis weight, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art
Lifshutz is silent with regards to the standard deviation being less than 2 microns.
However, Suzuki teaches a consistent filament diameter results in uniform pore size and teaches the use of polypropylene to form the filaments (Suzuki, para 0015, 0061). Merkel teaches uniform pore size distribution results in significant reduction in pressure drop while maintaining mechanical strength and high filtration efficiency (Merkel, para 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber web of Lifshutz, wherein the fiber are uniform, and therefore have a low standard deviation, such as in the claimed range, as taught by Suzuki, motivated by the desire to ensure uniform pore size which results in reduction in pressure drop while maintaining mechanical strength and high filtration efficiency as taught by Merkel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot based upon the current grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment. Examiner would like to note that Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Jackson, that Jackson does not specific the basis weight of the meltblown layer and the backing sheet provides dimensional stability and the foraminous spunbond backing sheet would have a relatively high basis weight in comparison to the basis weight of the meltblown layer. However, claim 1 specifies the basis weight being the nonwoven fabric and is not specific to only the meltblown layer as Applicant argues. This is supported by claim 2 which claims “the nonwoven fabric comprises a meltblown fabric,” and therefore is open to additional layers or materials, such as a spunbond layer. If the nonwoven fabric being a meltblown fabric or consisting of a meltblown fabric is critical to the invention and achieving the claimed properties, the claims should be amended accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789